Something<\/strong><\/p>\n When people use the term \u2018God\u2019, all you can know for certain \u2013 well, more or less \u2013 is that they use the term \u2018God\u2019. Apparently, they use it to point towards \u2018something\u2019, broadly speaking. What can this \u2018something\u2019 be and where does the idea of it come from?<\/p>\n We see this \u2018something\u2019 pop up in many cultures. People from these cultures use very different terms for it. Furthermore, this \u2018something\u2019 is supposed to have very different characteristics (number, gender, transcendence etc.) in different cultures.<\/p>\n Is this \u2018something\u2019 even something?<\/strong><\/p>\n In a completely transcendent way of dealing with this something, it is actually a not-something, a no-thing. In view of it being frequently described as \u2018unknowable\u2019, this might be an interesting way of approaching \u2018it\u2019, as a no-thing, or even better: as no-thing. The \u2018a\u2019 can be left out since in most religions, it is eventually describe as being one, oneness, universal, the universe itself and so on. In any case, there cannot be 2 of these.<\/p>\n Surprise: I don\u2019t agree.<\/strong><\/p>\n I think we have to take one step further back in our asking where the \u2018God\u2019-idea comes from.<\/p>\n Namely:<\/p>\n People look at something. They see the something they are looking at. For instance: part of the universe. For instance: a computer screen.<\/p>\n But there is also the thing with which they are looking, which is prior to what is seen. A blind man cannot see. A man waring sunglasses sees the world a bit darker.<\/p>\n Let\u2019s now take the \u2018seeing apparatus\u2019 in a broad way: eyes, sunglasses if worn, the visual cortex in the brain, the whole brain working together to \u2018make\u2019 something of the visual input.<\/p>\n Before \u2018God being everything\u2019 comes that with what we are looking at everything.<\/strong><\/p>\n If we simply look at everything, we have no indication that there is anything more than this: \u2018everything\u2019.<\/p>\n For instance: nowhere do we find an emotion but in ourselves while looking at something that provokes this emotion. Without a feeler, there is no feeling. Without a religious feeler, there is no religious feeling.<\/p>\n Without religious feeling, there is no \u2018God\u2019 as we feel that there should be.<\/p>\n The term \u2018God\u2019 points to something that we eventually only \u2018religiously feel\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n The feeling is prior.<\/p>\n Without anyone having felt anything, there is no indication at all<\/em> of this anything.<\/p>\n So, if \u2018anything\u2019 (or \u2018something\u2019) would be there, we would have no contact. And if \u2018anything\u2019 (or \u2018something\u2019) would not be there, we would still have no contact.<\/p>\n The feeling is prior.<\/p>\n As concerns us humans, the feeling is what \u2018God\u2019 is about. It cannot<\/em> be otherwise. We can know \u2018God\u2019 only through<\/em> ourselves.<\/p>\n So, we can better say that \u2018God\u2019 is about the way we are looking at the universe (or any part of it).<\/p>\n It\u2019s in the way of looking.<\/p>\n Religion is the specific way of looking with eyes of soul<\/strong>.<\/p>\n